Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 17440

 1                           Thursday, 16 February 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The Accused Stanisic not present]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone.

 6             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 8             This is the case IT-03-69-T, The Prosecutor versus

 9     Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             As everyone will see, Judge Picard is not present at this moment.

12     She is unable to continue sitting for urgent personal reasons.  And

13     Judge Gwaunza and myself are satisfied that it's in the interests of

14     justice to continue hearing this case.  I add to this, that the absence

15     of Judge Picard is likely to be of a short duration.

16             So, therefore, we have -- we hereby order that the hearing of the

17     case continue in the absence of Judge Picard.

18             Apart from that, I established that Mr. Stanisic is not present

19     in court.  We are waiting for a filled-in waiver form, but since we

20     discussed his absence already yesterday, we could continue even when that

21     form has not yet arrived.

22             Mr. Jordash, I take it that the waiver of his right to be

23     present, which was expressed yesterday, is unchanged.

24             MR. JORDASH:  Correct, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.


Page 17441

 1             Then is the witness available to be brought into the courtroom?

 2             Mr. Groome, you'll have a -- later today an opportunity to

 3     address the matter you wished to address.

 4             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour, yesterday you said a session or perhaps

 6     even less than a session.  That's still your estimate?

 7             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Selak.  Please be seated.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Selak, as I did yesterday, I again remind you

12     that you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given at

13     the beginning of your testimony.

14                           WITNESS:  OSMAN SELAK [Resumed]

15                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour, are you ready to continue your

17     cross-examination.

18             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

20                           Cross-examination by Ms. Harbour:  [Continued]

21        Q.   Mr. Selak, yesterday it became clear that you're very familiar

22     with the proceedings before this Tribunal and you reviewed many of the

23     documents that have been used in various proceedings.

24             I'd ask that in response to my questions today, if you could

25     please limit your answers to what you know from your own personal

Page 17442

 1     experience and observations at the time that we're discussing rather than

 2     referring to information that you learned subsequently from various

 3     documents.  And if you do find it absolutely necessary to refer to those

 4     documents to fully respond to a question, could you please clearly

 5     indicate that your answer relates to information gleaned from documents

 6     rather than your personal knowledge at the time?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   You've testified about your involvement as logistics commander

 9     and supplying, weapons, ammunition and other equipment to JNA and TO

10     units in Croatia.  Was any paperwork required in order to move across

11     borders from one republic to another in 1991 and 1992?

12        A.   No paperwork was needed, except for official military documents

13     accompanying consignments of military equipment, indicating to which unit

14     and how much.

15        Q.   Were there any passes that needed to be issued to the convoys

16     before they could cross the borders, or anything to that effect?

17        A.   I don't know about any passes because where military equipment

18     was delivered, where military units were located, there were authorities

19     of Yugoslavia in power; later Republika Srpska.  So I don't know of any

20     passes.  There was just military documentation indicating what is

21     carried, to whom, and how much.

22             I never had any special laissez-passer.

23        Q.   In your comments chart, which is now in evidence as D730, you

24     commented on three documents from April 1992 that reflected the SSNO

25     ordering the ammunition -- the issuing of ammunition to the Serbian

Page 17443

 1     Krajina MUP via the 2nd Military District.

 2             You commented that:

 3             "It was quite normal for police to request from the army this

 4     kind of supplies."

 5             And my question for you is:  Do you know anything about the

 6     Serbian MUP's involvement in issuing ammunition to the Serbian Krajina

 7     MUP?

 8        A.   I have no specific information about that.  There was information

 9     about deliveries of police equipment, not military equipment, but that

10     didn't go through the logistics base in Banja Luka, so I have no specific

11     information what was delivered and at what time because that would be in

12     the documentation of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia.  It would be been

13     the Serbian MUP and the Republika Srpska MUP.

14             I didn't have any documents.

15        Q.   You have provided evidence in your Milosevic testimony at

16     transcript page 22328 and 22344 through -46, that the JNA was involved in

17     arming the Serb TO in Western Slavonia and that the JNA and TO were

18     involved in various combat operations in that area of Croatia in Pakrac,

19     in Lipik, in 1991.

20             Do you know what the Serbian DB's role in Western Slavonia was

21     during that time?

22        A.   Serbian state security made efforts to organise authorities and

23     the system of government in that area in Republika Srpska, so it was

24     quite logical for the police to do their job.  The army did not interfere

25     with that, and it operated in the only way possible at the time.  It was

Page 17444

 1     between municipalities and the MUPs of municipalities and their police

 2     forces where the army had to get involved with deliveries of equipment,

 3     materiel, and perhaps ammunition.  That was done quite legally, and it

 4     went on quite normally.

 5        Q.   When I refer to the Serbian DB, I refer to the

 6     State Security Service of the Republic of Serbia.  Is that also how you

 7     interpreted my question and how we should interpret your response?

 8        A.   I did not have any contacts or any precise information about the

 9     contacts of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia with the MUP of

10     Republika Srpska.  I did not have access to that sort of information.

11     All that I know is from my contacts with the security organs in

12     Banja Luka, so I wouldn't be able to tell you anything about that.  There

13     were contacts, but what was the -- the issue, they -- they dealt with

14     between them, and in what way, I wouldn't know.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour, the first question you put to the

16     witness, you said:

17             "You've testified about your involvement as logistics commander

18     in supplying weapons, ammunition, and other equipment to JNA and TO units

19     in Croatia."

20             Now if my recollection is well, yesterday the main issue and,

21     therefore, I wanted to make sure there was no confusion, the main

22     transport of weapons was those pulled out from Slovenia and Croatia to

23     Bosnia; and, then, later, the transport through the corridor from Serbia

24     to, well, let's say the Banja Luka area.

25             I just want to make sure that the witness understood exactly what

Page 17445

 1     you meant by the supply of weapons, ammunition, and other equipment to

 2     JNA and TO units in Croatia, because most of what was said yesterday, as

 3     far as I remember, was about the movement of supplies, as I just

 4     explained.

 5             Could you please verify with the witness, and perhaps give us the

 6     exact sources and perhaps make sure that -- perhaps by quoting the exact

 7     lines what you were referring to.

 8             MS. HARBOUR:

 9        Q.   The source that I'm referring to, Mr. Selak, is not your

10     testimony from yesterday which largely focussed on what the Chamber has

11     just mentioned.  But, rather, I'd like to focus you on the JNA operations

12     in Western Slavonia --

13        A.   I understand.

14        Q.   -- particularly in the latter portion of 1991.  Do you know what

15     the Serbian DB's role, the State Security Service of the Republic of

16     Serbia, what their role was in that part of Croatia, in Western Slavonia,

17     at that time?

18        A.   Sorry, I didn't answer the first question about that

19     Territorial Defence unit in Slavonia and logistics base.

20             The base did deliver ammunition and weapons to units of

21     Territorial Defence in Slavonia.  I have no knowledge about what the

22     state security of Serbia did in the territory of Slavonia.  They were

23     involved around Vukovar.  But Pakrac and Lipik, I was present there when

24     the fighting went on.  There was a rocket brigade from Banja Luka, one

25     artillery battalion that targeted Pakrac and Lipik; I know that.

Page 17446

 1             But about the State Security of Serbia, its role and its

 2     activities in Slavonia, I really don't know, and I couldn't have stated

 3     that in the Milosevic case because I certainly did not have that kind of

 4     information.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And when you answered the question about the

 6     paperwork that was needed, were you referring to the paperwork needed in

 7     order to get this equipment into Slavonia; or did you -- were talking

 8     about other -- other supplies of weapons?

 9             You said no paperwork, just official military documents, where it

10     should be sent, et cetera.  Were you then specifically talking about

11     shipments to Slavonia?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that

13     documentation was purely military documentation.

14             Police organs in that territory and those were military vehicles

15     with military markings and military escort, did not interfere with that,

16     nor dared to interfere because the army was, of course, stronger.  But

17     the civilian authorities functioned normally, so the military transport

18     went without any problem to Slavonia and even the Serbian Krajina; Knin,

19     which, for instance was not in Slavonia.  Those were the deliveries.

20             The only problem was their requests were enormous, and I didn't

21     allow for it, because then the weapons would be distributed house to

22     house, and I tried -- I was trying to stop that, to prevent that.

23             There were no other passes, no.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

25             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please now turn to Exhibit P2452.  And I

Page 17447

 1     note that this document does not need to be under seal, as we indicated

 2     in our 2nd of February, 2012, submission.

 3        Q.   This is signed by Jovica Stanisic to the minister of defence of

 4     Serbia personally on the 9th of December, 1991.

 5             Mr. Selak, was the minister of defence of Serbia Tomislav Simovic

 6     at the time?

 7        A.   I can't remember.  I can't remember which date it was exactly, so

 8     I -- I don't know.  I don't know when that was.

 9        Q.   In this document, Stanisic reports information that he received

10     from the TO and police of Western Slavonia.  He informs the minister of

11     defence that:

12             "The JNA reservists are leaving positions en masse and

13     withdrawing towards Bijela Stijena and Okucani.  The brigade command does

14     not control the situation."

15             And then Stanisic concludes by stating:

16             "Unless adequate support is provided, there's a danger that the

17     soldiers and inhabitants will leave the territory of Western Slavonia."

18             Mr. Selak, do you know if, after this date, the minister of

19     defence made arrangements to supply weapons or any other support to the

20     TO in Western Slavonia?

21        A.   Your Honours, the Ministry of the Interior had no need to send

22     weapons to Western Slavonia because there was so many weapons there.

23     People who abandoned their positions, such as deserters, could not carry

24     their weapons with them.  Those weapons would remain behind.  And after

25     this date, complete units withdrew from Slavonia.  The JNA was pulling

Page 17448

 1     out from Pakrac and Lipik.

 2             Your Honours, allow me to expand on this case because I attended

 3     the meeting in General Uzelac's office when he got a call from Belgrade

 4     and orders to stop combat in Western Slavonia immediately.  That's the

 5     area from Pakrac and Lipik towards the Hungarian border.  When the phone

 6     call ended Uzelac said, I meant to go as far as the Hungarian border but

 7     now I can't.  And then the pull-out followed.  I don't know the exact

 8     date, but the JNA pulled out, and the Croatian forces were stronger and

 9     stronger all the time.  So the army just left the corridor open towards

10     Brcko and towards Serbia, and that corridor was opened all through the

11     war.

12             That's all.

13             MS. HARBOUR:  I'm going to ask Mr. Laugel to play an excerpt of

14     an intercepted conversation between Mr. Jovica Stanisic and

15     Radovan Karadzic on the 14th of December, 1991.  This is in evidence as

16     P673.

17             And Your Honour, I note that the English translation is dated the

18     4th of December, 1991, whereas the original has the date of 14 December,

19     so I will submit this translation for correction.

20             The intercept is under seal because the transcript bears the

21     signature of an operative but there is no reason that the intercept

22     itself cannot be played publicly.  This intercept is about three and a

23     half minutes long.  And I --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour, I didn't understand the previous answer

25     to be a real answer to your question.  I don't know whether you consider

Page 17449

 1     that your question has been answered, the previous one, or that you're

 2     not interested to hear the answer.

 3             The question was whether the witness knows whether any

 4     arrangements were made.  He explained that there was no need to send

 5     weapons, et cetera, but that is all opinion rather than ...

 6             MS. HARBOUR:  Let me just clarify with the witness.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

 8             MS. HARBOUR:

 9        Q.   Mr. Selak, I took your previous response to mean that, no, you

10     did not know that any arrangements were made for supply of weapons or

11     other support by the minister of defence to the Western Slavonia region?

12             Was that a correct understanding?

13        A.   You're right, I didn't know that.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's -- at least an answer.  He doesn't know,

15     neither in the positive nor in the negative sense.

16             Please proceed.

17             MS. HARBOUR:  I would like to ask Mr. Laugel now to play this

18     intercept from the 14th of December, 1991, which is P673.  And since we

19     were not able to sync the subtitles to the intercept, I have hard copies

20     of the translation if the Chamber or either of the parties are

21     interested.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  First of all, have you provided the transcripts to

23     the booth.

24             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  That's most important.  Then I think we can proceed.

Page 17450

 1                           [Intercept played]

 2             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Here's what it is about, the news

 3     is pretty controversial from other there in Slavonia.

 4             "From Banja Luka.

 5             "From Banja Luka.  5.000 new people have arrived in Banja Luka,

 6     10.000 arrive tomorrow.  I don't know why they are leaving, those, those

 7     villages.  Colonel Talic tells me that all of Seselj's men put up a

 8     fantastic fight.  Before they started sowing defeatism and saying that

 9     Serbia had betrayed them, why should they wait there, it would be lost

10     anyway so they killed the fucking lot.

11             "No doctor, don't, don't.

12             "Fall for ... no, no, first they blame 50 of Seselj's men, or 100

13     Seselj's Men.

14             "Yes, yes.

15             "We have to be an organised state to save this fucking people.

16             "Yes, yes.  I am, sort of ....

17             "For them, everyone is to blame, fuck them.

18             "Yes.

19             "When things are bad, the only ones to blame are Seselj's Men

20     and ...

21             "Yes.  He says that, he says that they are listening to them and

22     they are in disarray, that they are short of 1.000 to 2.000 men to

23     completely crush them, they, he says, we are listening to them, they, we

24     know for a fact that they are in disarray.  They are no good, he say.

25     And we need ... and I told them so, is to set up a brigade there, which

Page 17451

 1     is waiting in Bosanski Petrovac, people at home are ready to go, 700, I

 2     can raise them in two hours.

 3             "Doctor ...

 4             "I can raise them.

 5             "Doctor, my information over the last three days says that the

 6     army is not in control of the situation.

 7             "In Western Slavonia.

 8             "Yes, yes, they are not in control of the situation.

 9             "Yes.  Well, who is fighting over there?  What is going on?

10             "The army ... but the Territorial Defence is in disarray.

11             "Yes.

12             "They are on the offensive and I think that my information is

13     correct.

14             "Yes, yes.

15             "And that this has been going on for four to five days already.

16             "And what can be done about it?

17             "Well, I told you when you were in Belgrade that I had raised as

18     many as I could and warned their prime minister and the others of the

19     situation.

20             "Yes.

21             "There has to be a military reaction.  There has to be a military

22     reaction.

23             "But Talic ... Colonel Talic tells me, we only need a few men to

24     crush them completely because they're falling apart.  He says that the

25     Territorial Defence is poor, it's in disarray, but ... he says that the

Page 17452

 1     army has not withdrawn a single metre anywhere, by a single metre

 2     anywhere, on the territory that the army controls.

 3             "What they did hold ... where they had got to, Pakrac, the day

 4     before yesterday.

 5             "Yes.

 6             "You understand.

 7             "Yes, yes.

 8             "This means that they didn't have a front to speak of up there.

 9             "They got as far as Pakrac.  Up there our villages, man, they are

10     villages there, from Podravska Slatina, from Bocina Gora.  Everybody has

11     moved out from Mount Bilogora, there is no one to protect them from that

12     side, man, there were territorials there, there's no army there, that's

13     the problem.

14             "You see.

15             "Yes, yes.

16             "This means, that ... they didn't have a front up there.

17             "Fucking hell.  What are we do to?  I really don't know what to

18     do here.

19             "What is to be done ...

20             "Mr. Uzelac is out in the field there.  I don't know whereabouts.

21     I can't get a hold of him.

22             "No matter, here, I will ring Belgrade now.  I'll call as many

23     people as I can, I mean, but ... it will be a real exodus, man.

24             "Well, yes, I mean, but no Slavonia must be held ...

25             "Are you informed about what they're doing to you here in

Page 17453

 1     Banja Luka?

 2             "To be honest, I didn't want to go, or to know.  If Babic shits

 3     there, I'll tell him to go fuck himself.  They will probably try to do

 4     something stupid, and this Andjelko.

 5             "I barely convinced Hadzic not to go there.

 6             "Who?

 7             "Goran Hadzic.

 8             "Who?

 9             "Goran, Goran.

10             "Who?

11             "Hadzic.

12             "Ah, right."

13             MS. HARBOUR:

14        Q.   Mr. Selak, this -- what you've just heard is an intercept of a

15     conversation between Jovica Stanisic and Radovan Karadzic.  And, as I

16     said, this is on the 14th of December, 1991.

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   In it conversation, Stanisic has told Karadzic about the issue in

19     Western Slavonia.  Would you agree that Stanisic appears to be

20     well-informed about the JNA and TO operations in Western Slavonia from

21     this discussion?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Stanisic indicates that prior to this discussion he had warned

24     "their prime minister and the others of the situation."

25             Does this demonstrate his connections with the Serb leadership in

Page 17454

 1     Croatia?

 2             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, I object to that question.  It's --

 3     it's -- it's --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  You're asking the witness to draw conclusions from a

 5     text he has heard and seen.

 6             Now, you can ask the witness whether he has any personal

 7     knowledge about the relationship between -- but to say whether this

 8     demonstrates or not is finally a conclusion to be drawn by the Bench.

 9     Unless the witness has some specific knowledge about it, then you can ask

10     him for that.  But don't ask him to interpret the conversation as such.

11             Your first question was the same, I let it go, but then

12     Mr. Jordash rightly objected to the second question.  And I take it that

13     you did that after you had considered to do the same for the first

14     question.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Precisely.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             Ms. Harbour.  So if the witness knows anything about how and --

18     Mr. Stanisic, what kind of knowledge he had about the situation in the --

19     in Western Slavonia or how he had obtained that knowledge, fine.  But to

20     ask whether this document shows it, that's really not for a witness to

21     do.

22             Please proceed.

23             MS. HARBOUR:

24        Q.   Mr. Selak, as we've discussed, Stanisic has indicated - in this

25     discussion at least - that he had warned the prime minister, their prime

Page 17455

 1     minister.  Do you have any personal knowledge about any relationship

 2     Mr. Stanisic may have had about -- with Serb leadership in Croatia?

 3        A.   All the mass media in Banja Luka reported on the developments in

 4     Croatia, specifically in the Serbian Krajina, in Croatia, and the Bosnian

 5     Krajina.  We knew on this basis and I knew from military sources that

 6     these military and political communications were always ongoing with

 7     Banja Luka, Belgrade, and the Krajina.  And I stand by what I say,

 8     Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  It's not about your knowledge.  It is about

10     whether you know anything about how Mr. Stanisic gained knowledge of what

11     happened over there, and whether you have any personal knowledge of

12     Mr. Stanisic's communication with the Belgrade leaders.

13             Do you know anything about that?

14        A.   I don't have any knowledge about that.  Not personal knowledge.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Harbour.

16             MS. HARBOUR:

17        Q.   Just to clarify, and you also don't have personal knowledge of

18     Mr. Stanisic's communications with leadership in Croatia, in the Serbian

19     Krajina?

20        A.   I do not.

21        Q.   In this discussion, Karadzic refers to Talic and Uzelac as being

22     involved in this operation.  You knew that the 5th Corps of the JNA was

23     involved in this action.

24             At this point in 1991, what was Dr. Karadzic's authority or

25     relationship over the 5th Corps?

Page 17456

 1        A.   At that point in time, Karadzic had no powers whatsoever over the

 2     5th Corps, because it was the 5th Corps of the Yugoslav People's Army.

 3             The Army of Republika Srpska was declared only on the

 4     18th of June, 1992, so he had no authority over the JNA, their command

 5     and control, or that of the TO.

 6        Q.   Stanisic states:

 7             "I'll call as many people as I can."

 8             Mr. Selak, do you know whether Stanisic had any authority or

 9     resources to address the situation in Western Slavonia?

10             And please only answer to your own knowledge.

11        A.   I don't know that Stanisic had any powers over the police and any

12     of their organs in Western Slavonia.  This sort of information did not

13     reach military commands.

14        Q.   So your testimony is that you don't know whether he did or not;

15     is that correct?

16        A.   I don't know whether he did or not.  I have no information to

17     that effect.

18        Q.   The last question was about Mr. Stanisic's authority and

19     resources.  And now I'd like to know whether you know if Stanisic sent

20     combatants to assist the JNA in the Western Slavonia operations.

21        A.   I know that there were problems with Western Slavonia.  Now, who

22     took part there alongside the army, I can't tell you.  There was chaos,

23     people fled en masse to Banja Luka on tractors, whatever vehicles they

24     could spare.  They were in disarray.  What the course of the operation in

25     Western Slavonia was, I don't know, because I only provided logistics

Page 17457

 1     support to the JNA units.  I was not aware of the way in which the

 2     civilian authority there was organised.

 3        Q.   Further on, at the very end of this conversation between Karadzic

 4     and Stanisic, and I did not play the entire conversation for you so this

 5     quote is actually not part of what you heard.

 6             Mr. Stanisic said that he would:

 7             "Call my lads who are in contact with the TO Staff up there in

 8     Psunj [Realtime transcript read in error "Slunj"]."

 9             Psunj is near Pakrac; is that correct?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Were you aware that the Serbian DB members maintained contact

12     with TO staff in Western Slavonia during the time that the 5th Corps was

13     engaged in operations there?

14        A.   I don't have that sort of information.  The 5th Corps security

15     organ did not inform me about me [as interpreted].  He was in

16     communication with TO units and civilian security organs.  I don't know

17     anything about it, and I wouldn't want to go wrong.

18             I would tell you on a personal note that they did, but that's

19     just my personal view, and I have no information to back it with.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour, there seems to be some confusion about

21     the place you referred to.  It's now on the transcript as "Slunj."  But

22     it reads in the exhibit Psunj, P-s --

23             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, let's be -- yes, it may have been your

25     pronunciation.  But what we find in this transcript of the telephone

Page 17458

 1     conversation, right or wrong, that is also a matter which perhaps may

 2     need some verification, is that Mr. Stanisic would have said:

 3             "I called my lads who are in contact with the TO Staff up there

 4     on," it says "on," not "in," "Psunj," P-s-u-n-j, which as I do understand

 5     is a mountain in the south-west Slavonia region.

 6             Did you understand the question to refer to Psunj or to Slunj?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My understanding was that it had to

 8     do with Psunj.  I saw it in the transcript and that's how I understood

 9     it.  Maybe I misheard it.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, as a matter of fact, in the transcript, on our

11     transcript of today, it's Slunj, and your pronunciation might have caused

12     a bit of a problem.  But it's clear now that we're talking about Psunj

13     and nothing else.

14             Please proceed.

15             MS. HARBOUR:

16        Q.   Mr. Selak, yesterday, we reviewed some maps outlining your area

17     of responsibility.  And I just want to confirm with you that as commander

18     of the 993rd Logistics Base, this area that we've been discussing in

19     Pakrac and Psunj, in this area of Western Slavonia, was within your area

20     of responsibility, was it not?

21        A.   Yes, yes.

22        Q.   Now I would like to ask Mr. Laugel to play another intercept for

23     you.  And this is P676 and records another conversation between Karadzic

24     and Jovica Stanisic, and that's on the 20th of December, 1991.

25                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

Page 17459

 1             MS. HARBOUR:

 2        Q.   For your information, it's the Prosecution's case that the person

 3     addressed as Joco in this intercept is Mr. Jovica Stanisic.

 4             Since it is difficult to follow who is speaking without the

 5     transcripts, would it be assist if we distributed the hard copies of the

 6     transcripts?

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that might assist.  Of course all the parties

 8     in this courtroom can have it on their own screens.  I mean, they can

 9     call for themselves P676 and have the transcript on the screen, so it

10     would save some paper.  But for those who have no direct access to

11     e-court, there, it might assist.

12             MS. HARBOUR:  I don't have a B/C/S transcript handy, so ...

13     there's nothing to distribute to the witness, unfortunately.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And to the accused, apparently.

15                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll show it on the screen, although it will not

17     help the witness very much if it is in English, unless the witness

18     sufficiently understands the English language.  Let me just ...

19             And then you say you don't have a B/C/S transcript, which

20     surprises me, because it is in e-court.  So we can use it on the screen.

21     So it is available.  But it should be shown on the screen then, and then

22     the ...

23             The usher will assist.

24                           [Video-clip played]

25             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Joco, hello" --

Page 17460

 1             MS. HARBOUR:  Sorry, before we play it, I would just like to ask

 2     the interpreters pay particular attention to -- when interpreting the

 3     line that in the translation says the civilian, in parenthesis, as our

 4     language staff have had different views of how this is interpreted.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, you're asking our interpreters to verify

 6     the accuracy of a document which is in evidence, and there's an English

 7     version of that.  So that is not usually done.  But at least the Chamber

 8     is aware that there may be an issue there.  If that needs verification it

 9     has to be sent to CLSS again to verify the accuracy of the translation in

10     that respect.

11             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes, Your Honour.  I only know because we noticed

12     this this morning, so just for the record today.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That doesn't change the way in which it should be

14     concluded.  But we are now alerted to a possible issue about this part.

15             And where exactly do we start?

16             Please proceed.

17                           [Intercept played]

18             THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "R:  Joco, hello.

19             "J:  Hello.

20             "R:  That's better.

21             "J:  How are you doctor?

22             "R:  Well, we're working.  We're in a council meeting so I popped

23     out to call you.

24             "J:  I'd like to ask you to tell you one thing which is that the

25     situation around Okucani is critical tonight.

Page 17461

 1             "R:  Critical is it?

 2             "J:  Yes.

 3             "R:  So they can take Okucani, or what?

 4             "J:  Yes.

 5             "R:  I have to call Slobo, right?

 6             "J:  Well, I can do it.  But I don't want to disturb him there

 7     right now.

 8             "R:  Just feel free to call him.

 9             "J:  What?

10             "R:  Feel free to call him.  No, he has to know about this.  He

11     has to know about this.  They mustn't be allowed to take hold of

12     territory during a truce.  Just call him up.

13             "J:  Good.  Can't you do something for me here so that Krajina

14     puts a bit of pressure there on?

15             "R:  No, no, can't be done because if --

16             "J:  I mean to have the Banja Luka Corps.

17             "R:  No, if this Uzelac isn't there and Uzelac isn't there.

18             "J:  That's his deputy.

19             "R:  I beg your pardon.

20             "J:  He's got a deputy.

21             "R:  He can't do it without an order.  I talked to him.  He's a

22     good man, but he can't do it without an order.

23             "J:  Well, let them fire a few rounds at night.  Damn it.

24             "R:  He doesn't dare.

25             "J:  Huh?

Page 17462

 1             "R:  He doesn't dare.  I try to find him, but he won't dare to.

 2             "J:  Come on, doctor, just a little.

 3             "R:  I'll try but he won't dare to.  Never mind, this should be

 4     reported to Slobo.  Aco has finished that over there today.

 5             "J:  Yes, yes, all right.

 6             "R:  All right.  Bye."

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter's note:  It was too inaudible.

 8     We weren't able to hear what was said.

 9             MS. HARBOUR:

10        Q.   In this intercept discussion, Karadzic and Stanisic both refer to

11     someone named Slobo, and I would like to ask you if you know whether --

12     if you have any personal knowledge of whether Mr. Stanisic and

13     Mr. Karadzic were in communication with Slobodan Milosevic.

14        A.   This is the first time I'm hearing this conversation, and I don't

15     have any information about that.  I have -- I had no information as to

16     the sort of communication that they had.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any dispute about the parties that the

18     interlocutors, when talking about Slobo, would have referred to

19     Mr. Milosevic?

20             MR. JORDASH:  No.  And there's no dispute that Stanisic was, on

21     occasion, in touch with Milosevic either.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Apart from what seems to be almost obvious, I'm not

23     saying that Slobo is -- in the conversations is usually, of course,

24     always to be verified in the context, but is usually a reference to

25     Mr. Milosevic, I would say.

Page 17463

 1             So, therefore, I think it would have been wiser to check with the

 2     Prosecution -- with the Defence whether there's any dispute about this

 3     reference here.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MS. HARBOUR:

 6        Q.   Mr. Stanisic asks at some point in this conversation:

 7             "Can't you do something here for me so that Krajina puts a bit of

 8     pressure there."

 9             And Mr. Karadzic responds that he will try.

10             Mr. Selak, do you know, from your personal knowledge, if

11     Mr. Stanisic had any ability to influence the combat instructions that

12     were received by the 5th Corps?

13        A.   I, myself, had never heard that Stanisic had any sort of

14     influence over the 5th Corps in Banja Luka.  I suppose he did communicate

15     with the corps command organs, but I don't have personal knowledge of it.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we don't have to -- what you suppose or

17     not is -- it is about your personal knowledge.

18             Please proceed.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is irrelevant.

20             MS. HARBOUR:  If we could now turn to Exhibit P1307, to page 5 in

21     the English and page 6 in the B/C/S.

22        Q.   Mr. Selak, this is a document that you looked at yesterday.  And

23     could I ask you to focus here on the experiences listed, once the

24     document is displayed.

25             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we have page 5 in the English, please, and

Page 17464

 1     page 6 in the B/C/S.

 2        Q.   Here, under experiences listed, the second item down states:

 3             "Some SDS leaders at all levels are seeking weapons from the JNA

 4     and the MNO of Serbia through various channels, in a fight for

 5     primacy ..."

 6             Serbia's Ministry of National Defence had its own access to

 7     weapons independent from the JNA; is that correct?

 8             And if you don't know, please just say so.

 9        A.   The Serbian Ministry of Defence did not have weapons of its own.

10     Weapons were stored in TO depots and JNA depots because there was,

11     officially, the Yugoslav People's Army, and not the Army of the Republic

12     of Serbia, at least officially.  I don't know what the case was

13     unofficially.  Officially they were not supposed to have weapons.

14        Q.   But if they had access to weapons unofficially, they would have

15     been able to supply weapons to groups without going through the JNA; is

16     that correct?

17             MR. JORDASH:  Objection.  It's an invitation to speculate.  If --

18     if --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's just ask the --

20             MS. HARBOUR:  I take your point.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  -- witness whether he knows anything about -- but

22     not knowing whether they had weapons at all, what -- if they would have

23     had weapons how they would distribute them.  That, of course, is, again,

24     a matter at least -- what we would like to know is whether the witness

25     could tell us anything about that in terms of facts rather than on --

Page 17465

 1     in -- how that should have been.  Yes?

 2             Do you know anything about distribution of weapons which may have

 3     come from the Ministry of National Defence of Serbia?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know anything about it.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 6             MS. HARBOUR:  If we go down to the last line on this page in the

 7     English and onto the next page, which is page 7 in the B/C/S, this line

 8     reads:

 9             "In light of the fact that many people from the SDS are

10     contacting the authorities and other structures in Serbia, it would be a

11     good idea for the SSNO to point such occurrences out to the leadership in

12     Serbia and to recommend to them to take more proactive steps to eliminate

13     deviant behaviour in this region."

14        Q.   You've just heard an intercept of a conversation between Karadzic

15     and Stanisic on the 4th of December, 1991, in which Stanisic agreed to

16     supply men to assist in Western Slavonia?

17             Would you consider that an instance of what is discussed in this

18     document of a very prominent member of the SDS receiving assistance from

19     an authority in Serbia?

20             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, objection.  If the witness --

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Objection is sustained.

22             Again, you're asking opinion from the witness.  Is this a

23     demonstration of that.  Now we have this document.  This document is --

24     clearly says something and we have another incident.  Whether the one is

25     an expression of the other, you can ask the witness whether he has any

Page 17466

 1     specific knowledge about that.  But to say, Does this demonstrate what is

 2     seen there, asks for opinion and judgement, rather than facts.

 3             Please proceed.

 4             The Chamber will have to consider this question, perhaps, but

 5     it's not for the witness to -- unless the witness could tell us that his

 6     neighbour told him once that, in view of this document, someone else had

 7     expressed a certain -- that's facts.  But you are just asking the witness

 8     to link two events.  And that is judgement, opinion, assessment, rather

 9     than factual knowledge, unless the witness has any specific knowledge

10     about the link between the document and the behaviour of Mr. Stanisic, as

11     we have found it in the intercept.

12             You may proceed.

13             MS. HARBOUR:

14        Q.   Mr. Selak, do you know of any instances that would exemplify what

15     is being discussed here of the SDS contacting the authorities and other

16     structures in Serbia?

17             If you don't have any personal knowledge of these instances,

18     please just let us know.

19        A.   Your Honours, I have this document.  I have a whole batch of

20     documents in my bag here.  I have analysed it, but I have no direct

21     knowledge about such communications, so I'm not really qualified to

22     answer.

23        Q.   In your Milosevic testimony, at transcript reference 22235

24     through -40, in reference to a document that is in evidence in this case

25     as D271, you testified about convoys carrying materials, ammunitions,

Page 17467

 1     weapons and other items from Belgrade to Banja Luka after the JNA units

 2     in the area became VRS units.  So after the 18th of May, 1992.

 3             And you testified that the vehicles from the 1st Krajina Corps

 4     that would be driven to Belgrade empty would then pick up toilet paper

 5     from a factory in Belgrade and then:

 6             "On the return journey that they should pick up material and

 7     equipment from the units of the Yugoslav People's Army on the territory

 8     of Yugoslavia, or, rather, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

 9             And then during your direct examination yesterday, two days ago,

10     I believe, you testified that convoys of 30 to 35 trucks travelled from

11     Banja Luka to Belgrade and back, carrying supplies from Belgrade on an

12     almost daily basis.

13             What was the time-period during which these convoys were making

14     the trips to and from Belgrade?

15        A.   Your Honours, there's a dilemma here.  When the toilet paper was

16     mentioned, that factory was in Banja Luka, and they delivered goods to

17     Serbia, so that was paper for Serbia.  And from Serbia, the trucks

18     constantly went in convoys not -- not convoys every day.  Convoys went

19     once or twice a month at the outside.  Only individual trucks went daily.

20     And they would bring weapons and ammunition, weapons not so often,

21     ammunition and other equipment.  And some of the weapons were transported

22     even by air.

23        Q.   Mr. Selak, you've already testified about that document and

24     those -- and the route carrying the toilet paper and back in your

25     Milosevic testimony.  I'm interested in what time-frame you were

Page 17468

 1     referring to on your direct examination when you testified that 30 to 35

 2     trucks travelled from Banja Luka to Belgrade and back, carrying supplies

 3     on almost a daily basis.  What was the time-frame in which you were

 4     discussing?

 5        A.   That was the spring of 1992.  In 1991, in December, convoys

 6     travelled other routes, such as via Tuzla as well.

 7             But speaking of Banja Luka, that corridor was very important.  It

 8     was a life-line in the spring of 1992 when the Army of Republika Srpska

 9     was proclaimed, when the operations started, and the Army of Bosnia and

10     Herzegovina tried to cut off that route.  Their Tuzla units were trying

11     to cut off that route.  And that's why we needed combat vehicles for

12     escort of these convoys and aviation, et cetera.

13        Q.   In order to travel back and forth between Banja Luka and

14     Belgrade, regardless of the route, these convoys containing ammunition

15     and other weapons and other materials would have to cross the border

16     between Serbia and Bosnia.  And is it correct that the Serbian MUP had

17     controls on the border?

18        A.   [No audible response]

19        Q.   Mr. Selak, your answer was not audible.  Could you repeat your

20     answer.

21        A.   The border crossing was at Brcko.  It was called Srpska Raca.

22     That was the border crossing between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

23     That's where the corridor went and the route convoys took.  It was

24     Srpska Raca.  And it 1992, I travelled that route, and the police would

25     check our documentation and there were even UN force there is; that is, a

Page 17469

 1     group of UN officers that also controlled the border at Srpska Raca.  It

 2     was a bit illogical, incongruous.  And I know from personal experience

 3     that there were abuses by the UN because when military transports

 4     travelled, they would move away from the border crossing, and the

 5     transports went through.  What's interesting is the information, how the

 6     goods were camouflaged that went from Serbia to Bosnia and Herzegovina

 7     and vice versa.

 8             Custom seals were placed over the tarpaulin on trucks, and the

 9     goods declared would be one thing, and the actual shipment was fuel.  So

10     I -- I was there a couple of times, and I -- I was a witness of the

11     transport of various goods.

12        Q.   You've mentioned --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour, you were talking about the trucks going

14     empty to Belgrade, loading toilet paper there.  I'm just trying to fully

15     understand.  And you refer to 22.235 to -240.

16             What I read there is something different.  Cellulose paper

17     factory in Banja Luka by 1600 hours to load 100 tonnes of toilet paper.

18     Vehicles spent the night over there.  Next day at 6.30 the motor vehicles

19     shall be collected at the work organisation, refueled, and shall set off

20     for Belgrade at 700 hours and then to deliver that in Belgrade.

21             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes, Your Honour.  And the witness has also

22     clarified that, I think.  If my question was --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but you -- you -- well, you put it just the

24     other way:  Going empty to Belgrade and loading toilet paper.  And I

25     wondered what the basis for that question was, but apparently it was a

Page 17470

 1     mistake.

 2             MS. HARBOUR:  It was a mistake.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MS. HARBOUR:  Your Honours, my next question is the kind of

 6     question which you gave some guidance about yesterday.  And I've

 7     carefully studied your guidance and I have endeavoured to craft the

 8     question accordingly.  Once you've heard the question, I have prepared a

 9     brief submission regarding why I believe that the question should be

10     asked the way that I've crafted it, and I leave it to Your Honours

11     whether you'd like to hear my submission.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Jordash will carefully listen as well.

13             Please proceed.

14             MS. HARBOUR:

15        Q.   Mr. Selak, in your Milosevic testimony at transcript page 22257

16     which is e-court page 62 of Exhibit D699 in this case, Mr. Milosevic

17     asked you if it was not the case that the VRS's approach to the conflict

18     on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina was to "curb any possible

19     incidents of conduct that could tarnish the dignity and reputation of

20     that image."

21             This is at -- Mr. Milosevic took these words from Exhibit D726 in

22     this case.  You responded at the same transcript page:

23             "No, that was not the approach because 280.000 victims were not

24     killed by individuals but by the army, paramilitary organisations, and

25     volunteer units."

Page 17471

 1             Mr. Selak, based on your own personal knowledge and experience,

 2     do you have any information that would allow you to exclude that special

 3     units of the Serbian DB also contributed to these atrocities?

 4        A.   Your Honour, from the end of the war, we, in the War Crimes

 5     Institute, have been studying documentation about the involvement of all

 6     the peoples, the Serbs, the Bosniaks, and all the others in the war in

 7     Bosnia and Herzegovina.  There were volunteers from all sides, and the

 8     personnel was provided in an organised way.  We had documentation exactly

 9     how many people were involved.  When I gave the number 280.000, we are

10     still studying this number.  It's probably lower, as we know now, but it

11     is still 100- to 150.000.

12             However, concerning the organisation of travels of -- of groups,

13     and we have Kukanjac's orders about volunteer units, we know - we know

14     for a fact - that groups from Serbia came in an organised manner.  There

15     is an order from the General Staff of the Yugoslavia army about units

16     from the Uzice and Valjevo corps being involved in operations in Bosnia.

17     When I reviewed the documentation that was ceased from the VRS here in

18     the Tribunal, I found that document, among others, so these units from

19     Serbia were involved in operations in Bosnia.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Doesn't answer your question, I take it.

21             MS. HARBOUR:

22        Q.   It doesn't exactly answer my question, Mr. Selak.  I'm referring

23     specifically to --

24        A.   Would you kindly repeat the question.

25        Q.   I will.  Referring specifically to special units of the

Page 17472

 1     Serbian State Security Service in the Republic of Serbia, based on your

 2     personal knowledge, do you have information that would allow you to

 3     exclude that these units participated in the crimes that we've been

 4     discussing?

 5        A.   At that time, I did not have that information.

 6        Q.   And right now you --

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Again, that's -- that's a bit -- let me try to

 8     clarify the issue.

 9             In your testimony in the Milosevic case, you say, Those 280.000

10     were not killed by individuals, but they were killed by the army, by

11     paramilitary organisations, and by volunteer units.

12             Now, is there any fact known to you which would allow you to say

13     that any of these units or entities you mentioned are not linked to the

14     Serbian DB?

15             Is there anything you'd say, Well, when I talk about the army,

16     paramilitary organisations, and volunteer, I know for sure, because of

17     this and this and this fact, that they were not in any way linked to the

18     Serbian DB.

19             Do you have any fact to your knowledge; or do you say, No, I do

20     not have any facts which would allow me to say that they are not linked

21     to the Serbian DB?

22             Is the question clear to you?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question is clear to me,

24     Your Honour.

25             However, in this document, it says that the army distributed

Page 17473

 1     weapons to people.  It doesn't say whether, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or in

 2     Serbia, about 60.000 pieces of infantry weapons, and the document also

 3     says that the army agrees and approves of the formation of volunteer

 4     units that were not part of the Yugoslav People's Army, and it was those

 5     units that committed those crimes.  And loads of them came from the

 6     Republic of Serbia.  I know that for a fact.  Unfortunately, it's true.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But again you say, I know that they came from

 8     the Republic of Serbia.  Is there any fact known to you which would allow

 9     you to say, Well, they came from Serbia but they certainly were not

10     linked in any way, they could not be linked to the DB; or do you say, No,

11     I don't have such knowledge, which would then leave it open, whether or

12     not they had been linked to the DB in any way?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I repeat once again.

14     The personnel that came from Serbia to Bosnia-Herzegovina, apart from

15     military organisations, had to come with the knowledge of the

16     Ministry of the Interior of the Serbia, because the MUP of Serbia always

17     knew, had to know, who was leaving and who was crossing the border.  And

18     that's not military organisation.  It was the civilian organisation.  The

19     Ministry of Interior, they monitor who is leaving and who is coming into

20     the country.  That's my argument.  The army did not interfere with that.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  You rightly say that's your argument.  You are

22     drawing inferences from what you know to be the system, without having

23     any specific knowledge about links to the DB, but you say it hardly could

24     be else, because they controlled the borders.

25             Is that correctly understood?


Page 17474

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 3             Please proceed, Ms. Harbour.

 4             MS. HARBOUR:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Harbour.

 6             Then I suggest that we first take a break.

 7             After the break, how much time would the parties need?

 8             Mr. Bakrac.

 9             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me, ten to

10     15 minutes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ten to 15 minutes.

12             And, Mr. Jordash, could you give an estimate already.

13             MR. JORDASH:  20 minutes, please.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  20 minutes.

15             Then we'll take a break, and we resume at five minutes to 11.00.

16                           --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20                           Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Selak.

22        A.   Good morning.

23        Q.   We did not have occasion to speak to each other and I will now

24     move onto the topic I'm interested in.

25             My learned friend asked you about volunteers and about whether

Page 17475

 1     you could rule out the possibility of volunteer units having been armed.

 2             Can we now call up P1312.

 3             You will tell me if you are familiar with the document; and, if

 4     you are not, whether you are familiar with some of the facts contained in

 5     that document.

 6             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we have page 1, please.

 7        Q.   It is dated the 3rd of April, 1992.  As it seems, it is the

 8     1st Administration of the Federal Secretariat of National Defence that

 9     sent it to the General Staff of the armed forces of the SFRY.

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Have you had a look of this page -- at this page?

12        A.   Yes.

13             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we move to page 2.

14        Q.   Please focus on the preamble and item 1.

15        A.   Yes, go ahead.

16        Q.   Mr. Selak, are you familiar with the document?

17        A.   I have that document myself.

18        Q.   Is it true that the General Staff of the armed forces of the

19     SFRY, in early April of 1992, issued an order to start forming staffs,

20     detachments, and brigades of volunteer units as soon as may be, and that

21     they be manned with the officer corps of the JNA, and that they be armed

22     and equipped?

23        A.   Yes.  I am familiar with that.

24        Q.   Did this, in fact, come about?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 17476

 1        Q.   Under the legislation in force at the time was it allowed for the

 2     JNA to recruit volunteers?

 3        A.   Volunteers were not part of the Yugoslav People's Army, but they

 4     were recruited in order to bring the manpower levels up.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour.

 6             MS. HARBOUR:  Mr. Bakrac began with saying that this arose from

 7     questions about whether Mr. Selak could rule out the possibility of

 8     volunteer units being -- having been armed.

 9             In fact, we don't dispute that volunteer units were armed by the

10     JNA.  So this issue was actually not a part of the cross-examination.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac.

12             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have

13     misunderstood then.  What was important, also, was the time-period when

14     the arming effort took place in Bosnia.  But I will move on.

15        Q.   Mr. Selak, my learned friend from the Prosecution asked you if

16     you could rule out the possibility that police units, too, were engaged

17     in arming.  And you answered that.

18             I would like to have a quick look at 1D1995, which is related to

19     the period that you spent on the field, 24th of April, 1992, and is

20     related to your area of responsibility, i.e., Banja Luka.

21             Can you tell me if you are familiar with the facts contained in

22     the document?  It is issued by the command of the 2nd Military District

23     of the 24th of April, 1992.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   It is sent to the Federal Secretariat of National Defence, its

Page 17477

 1     technical administration.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Of the Ministry of Interior of the Serbian Republic of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina:

 5             "We have received a request from the ministry, strictly

 6     confidential number 11, of the 23rd of April, 1992, for materiel and

 7     technical equipment to be used by the special purposes police detachment

 8     of the Banja Luka Security Services Centre."

 9             Next follows a list of equipment.

10        A.   88 items.

11        Q.   Precisely so, Mr. Selak.

12        A.   I have that document.

13        Q.   88 items.  Did you know that the MUP of Banja Luka, precisely for

14     its own purposes, asked that it be furnished with weapons; also for the

15     purposes of the special unit of the JNA.

16        A.   Yes, I'm aware of it.

17        Q.   Do you know if these -- this sort of equipment was delivered?

18        A.   Well, yes.  The materiel and technical equipment requested here

19     was delivered.  I don't know if all.  And I know that some of it came

20     from the logistics base in Banja Luka, though I can't tell you

21     specifically which items.

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since the witness is

23     familiar with the document and has confirmed his knowledge of these

24     events, I would like to tender this into evidence.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I have the document with me

Page 17478

 1     here.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Isn't it true that you introduced it as an existing

 3     exhibit, Mr. Bakrac?

 4             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh.  Let me see ...

 6             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The previous one was an exhibit.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  The previous one, yes.  This one then.  Any

 8     objections?

 9             MS. HARBOUR:  No objection.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D1995 will receive number D742,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

14             Please proceed.

15             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16        Q.   Mr. Selak, kindly tell us, if you remember, that there was the

17     military post box 5042 in Banja Luka, or thereabouts.

18        A.   Yes, I do believe that there was such a military post box, but

19     not in Banja Luka.  I think it existed in Doboj.  The Banja Luka Corps

20     had a different post box.  5042, I think it was Doboj, but it's been a

21     long time and it's difficult to remember these figures.

22        Q.   It's all right, Mr. Selak.  Do you know that in Doboj in this

23     military post 5042 there existed a volunteer unit?

24        A.   I was never in that area.  I never visited the unit, so I can't

25     confirm or deny it.  I don't know.

Page 17479

 1        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Selak.  I have two or three quick questions for

 2     you.

 3             My learned friend showed you P626, which is an intercept that you

 4     looked at and commented upon yesterday.

 5             Can we have page 2?  I'd like to check if we can clarify an

 6     entry.

 7             Mr. Selak, page 2 of the B/C/S.  If you look at the third row

 8     from the bottom, Slobodan says:

 9             "It is of strategic importance for the future of RAM."

10             Do you know what RAM is?

11             What my question is for you is, what is the RAM?

12        A.   It is a plan developed by the General Staff in Belgrade, which

13     also included activities in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I don't know the

14     details, but it was a well-known plan that had to do with combat and

15     which outlined a political objective.  I don't know the details, but the

16     RAM plan was already around in 1992 or perhaps 1993, I'm not sure.

17             I know of its existence, I didn't have it in my hands, but I

18     discussed it with my colleagues at work.  I don't know the details.

19        Q.   Thank you.  During my colleague's cross-examination, I think that

20     you said, at one point, that you fled Banja Luka for Germany but what the

21     transcript does not reflect is the town or the country you travelled

22     through to reach Germany.

23        A.   I went to Germany via Belgrade, rather, Srpska Raca and Belgrade,

24     where I spent the night at hotel Moskva, and later on I joined my

25     relatives.  I spent 11 days in Belgrade and then I took the German plane,

Page 17480

 1     Lufthansa, to fly to Germany to join my son, and that was on the 1st of

 2     June, 1995.  I spent some 13 or 14 days in Belgrade.

 3        Q.   Mr. Selak, did you know that a large number of Bosniak refugees

 4     were taken on into various refugee camps in Serbia, including Belgrade?

 5        A.   I know that there were many refugees that found accommodation in

 6     Serbia but most of them were from East Bosnia because that was where

 7     there was the largest presence of paramilitaries who cleansed Eastern

 8     Bosnia or Bosniaks, and the Bosniaks fled, among other places, to Serbia.

 9     There was a camp in Zrenjanin, Belgrade, and Novi Sad, perhaps elsewhere

10     as well.  I know that people ran for their lives and fled to Serbia,

11     among other places, though I say again most of them were from

12     Eastern Bosnia which is close to the Serbian border.

13        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Selak.  My learned friend asked you, and you said

14     that you supposed that the police forces were aware of volunteers joining

15     JNA units.

16             This is my question:  At that time, in 1992, was it allowed for

17     civilians to go to the theatres of war and join JNA units as volunteers?

18     Was it possible under the law to stop a civilian who is unarmed from

19     proceeding to join JNA units?

20        A.   Your Honours, the Yugoslav Presidency ordered that people be

21     mobilised.  But I have to give you the boarder information.  The recruits

22     who were serving their compulsory military service in the JNA, Bosniaks,

23     Croats, Slovenians, left the ranks of the army.  The army lacked

24     personnel and volunteers were then admitted precisely because of the low

25     strength of units, and it was expected that combat would follow.  That

Page 17481

 1     was why the formation and arming of volunteer units was permitted.

 2        Q.   My last question, Mr. Selak:  You said that, in Bosnia, some 68-

 3     or 69.000 pieces of weapons were distributed.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Do you consider that amount to be large; and was it sufficient

 6     for the arming of civilians; or was there need for additional arms?

 7        A.   Your Honour, I said yesterday that the amount was roughly 60.000,

 8     which would make up nearly four corps.  This is something that we have

 9     recorded for.

10             However, many convoys were stopped and weapons were seized, and

11     none of it was recorded.  And all of it was distributed to the Serbian

12     people across Bosnia-Herzegovina, or perhaps I should say

13     Republika Srpska because that was not the case of Sarajevo, Zenica,

14     Tuzla, and so on.

15             So all of it was distributed to the Serbian people, house to

16     house, to volunteer units, to TO units, et cetera.  People even dug up

17     holes to hide weapons and, later on, these caches would be discovered,

18     and this was forbidden.

19        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Selak.

20             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for allowing

21     me to put additional questions.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, any further questions for the witness?

23             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, please.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Once the furniture is installed, you may proceed.

25                           Re-examination by Mr. Jordash:


Page 17482

 1        Q.   Just a few questions, if I can, Mr. Selak.  I just want to pick

 2     up on the subject of the recorded conversations about events in 1991 in

 3     Western Slavonia and the impact on the Banja Luka region.

 4             MR. JORDASH:  Could we have on the screen, please, 65 ter 804.

 5     This is another intercept and this is a conversation between Karadzic and

 6     Uzelac.  Not to be shown to the public, please.

 7        Q.   And you'd like, when this comes on the screen, for you to read

 8     just the first three pages.  I think the fourth page has the name of an

 9     operative on it, so if we can -- if we just stick with the first three

10     pages.

11             I want to try to, Mr. Selak, understand a little bit more about

12     what was happening in 1991 in these areas.

13             Please indicate when you want the next page.

14        A.   Next page, please.

15             MR. JORDASH:  And page 2 of the English, too, please.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I have page 3?

17             MR. JORDASH:  Yes, please.  Thank you.

18             And perhaps for the English, for Your Honours, if we could go to

19     page 3 of the English.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 4, please.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Could ...

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read it.

23             MR. JORDASH:

24        Q.   Now, at one point, Karadzic says - this is page 2 of the English

25     and 2 of the B/C/S:

Page 17483

 1             "We have issued instructions to mobilisation everyone and to

 2     subordinate everyone to the command of the Yugoslav People's Army."

 3             And then a few lines down, Karadzic says:

 4             "It's important that some of those over 40, and others, remain,

 5     that some remain to protect the villages."

 6             This conversation took place in July of 1991.  Do you know

 7     anything about the villages, which ones Karadzic may have had in mind, as

 8     in need of attention or defence?

 9        A.   All the municipalities mentioned in this document and the

10     majority population were Serbs.  The operations were carried out in the

11     area of Kupres which borders with the Republic of Croatia.  There was

12     combat going on there.  Elements of my own unit were deployed to Kupres

13     as logistics support.  Men, up to 40, were supposed to respond to

14     mobilisation call-ups and those over 40 were supposed to stay behind in

15     their villages to protect them.

16             Quite a lot of the population fled the area.  There were people

17     fleeing Banja Luka as well.  We kept sending assistance to them.  My

18     commander, who was there himself, said that there were quite a few

19     killings going on and that the police force was unable to deal with that

20     on their own.  It was the month of July of 1991 when we had conducted

21     mobilisation.  Many men in Banja Luka refused to respond to these

22     call-ups, and we had to send military police patrols to go after them.

23     There were quite a few such cases in Banja Luka, Your Honour, where

24     Bosniaks and Croats refused to respond to call-ups and would then be

25     searched and -- and there would be police sent after them.

Page 17484

 1        Q.   And why was a lot of the population fleeing the area; and why

 2     were people fleeing Banja Luka; and why were you sending assistance to

 3     them?

 4        A.   There was fighting going on up there, as I said, in the direction

 5     of Croatia as well, and I had to provide support for these units in

 6     combat.  And citizens were fleeing these areas where not only fighting

 7     that was lawful was going on, there was a lot of unlawful occurrences as

 8     well, causing citizens to flee.  Unfortunately, later on, in 1992, there

 9     were quite a few people fleeing Banja Luka as well.  But we are talking

10     now about 1991 when there was fighting going on in Croatia, which became

11     independent, but the army did not withdraw from all the garrisons.  The

12     Serbs formed their own authorities, and that was what caused the

13     population to start fleeing, especially, as I say, the Croats and

14     Bosniaks.

15             I didn't bring along the census.  I think I have it in my hotel

16     room.  I have the 1991 census that was carried out in

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina --

18        Q.   Mr. -- sorry to cut you, but there's just some further details I

19     would like concerning what you've just said.

20             You said:

21             "The Serbs formed their own authorities, and that was what caused

22     the population to start fleeing, especially, as I say, the Croats and

23     Bosniaks."

24             And when did that take place?

25        A.   Again, there was fighting going in the month of July in Kupres

Page 17485

 1     and the border area with Croatia where units of the JNA and TO were

 2     engaged.  This situation prevailed until the months of January or

 3     February 1992.  I don't know when the fighting stopped.  And then when

 4     Republika Srpska was set up, that was a different issue.

 5             So I don't know exactly when it all got resolved.  I think it was

 6     the month of January or February.

 7        Q.   Of which year?

 8        A.   1992.

 9        Q.   So I do understand you correctly?  You're saying it was

10     January/February 1992 when the Serbs formed their own authorities, and

11     that's what caused the population to start fleeing?  It was in 1992?

12        A.   Your Honour, on the 24th of October, 1991, the Assembly of the

13     Serbian People proclaimed the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

14     That was when officially the process of legalisation began.  It was not

15     accepted that Bosnia-Herzegovina should secede from Yugoslavia.  There

16     was the wish to stay within Yugoslavia, and that was why, on

17     24th of October, 1991, the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was

18     proclaimed.  And I will never forget that date.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Let's go to P673, please, the intercept we looked at

20     before between Stanisic and Karadzic.

21             MR. JORDASH:  Under seal, please.

22             May I tender the last exhibit please Your Honour.

23             MS. HARBOUR:  [Microphone not activated] no objection,

24     Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

Page 17486

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  [Microphone not activated] Document 804 will

 2     receive number --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Microphone, microphone.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 804 will receive number D743,

 5     Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  D743 is admitted into evidence.

 7             MR. JORDASH:  Apparently we're in closed session, which I'm not

 8     sure -- no, we're not.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We are not.

10             MR. JORDASH:

11        Q.   This is an intercept you were shown before the break --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour.

13             MS. HARBOUR:  I'm sorry.  Can I just verify that that's -- D743

14     has been admitted under seal?

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, it has to be under seal.

16             MR. JORDASH:  Your Honour, yes.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, then it is -- the status is that it is a

18     confidential exhibit under seal.

19             Please proceed.

20             MR. JORDASH:

21        Q.   Now, you were the question about whether Stanisic seemed to be

22     well informed about events in Western Slavonia, and you answered, Yes.

23     And so I want to ask you about the -- those events and what made you

24     conclude he was --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Jordash, isn't it true that the question was

Page 17487

 1     whether, on the basis of this document, it seemed that, and then the

 2     witness said, Yes, and didn't I then say something about whether the

 3     witness had any personal knowledge or whether we --

 4             MR. JORDASH:  And that's what I'm going to ask him about, whether

 5     he has got personal knowledge about some of the events discussed in -- in

 6     this intercept.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I understood that he had no personal knowledge.  But

 8     if I'm wrong, then ...

 9             MS. HARBOUR:  I believe he said he had no personal knowledge of

10     Stanisic's knowledge.

11             MR. JORDASH:  That's right.  And I want to ask him about the

12     events in Western Slavonia that are referred to in this intercept.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  So apart from Mr. Stanisic's knowledge, whether the

14     witness has knowledge about him, yes.

15             MR. JORDASH:  Yes.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let the questions be very clear on that

17     because otherwise we get a long explanation on matters which may not

18     reflect personal knowledge of the witness.

19             So could you be very clear on that.

20             MR. JORDASH:  Certainly.

21        Q.   If you look at the first page there, Mr. Selak, and Karadzic

22     notes, or -- sorry, yes.  Karadzic notes the following:

23             "From Banja Luka, 5.000 new people have arrived in Banja Luka.

24     Ten thousand arrive tomorrow.  I don't know why they are leaving,

25     those -- those villages there."

Page 17488

 1             Are you able to cast any light on what Karadzic was talking

 2     about?  Do you know anything about the arrival of 5.000 or 15.000 people

 3     in Banja Luka in December of 1991?

 4        A.   Well, people were fleeing Slavonia, Your Honours.  Serbs were

 5     fleeing because of the fighting going on there.  Croatia, at the time,

 6     was seeking independence, using also armed force to get it, and that's

 7     why people were fleeing Slavonia.  At least part of the Serbian

 8     population were running for their lives, and they were in fear of the

 9     consequences of the fighting, and many of them came to Banja Luka.

10             Your Honours, allow me to say one more thing.  Even in 1995,

11     everything was on wheels in Slavonia.  Everybody was running to Serbia,

12     but that was prevented.  Peace was signed, and that didn't happen.  But

13     it was mayhem.  People loaded all their belongings, all their furniture

14     onto trucks, onto anything on wheels, trying to run to Serbia.  But,

15     eventually that didn't happen.

16        Q.   Let's just move a bit further into the conversation between

17     Karadzic and Stanisic.

18             Page 2 of the English and 2 of the B/C/S.

19             Karadzic notes there halfway down the English page -- no, further

20     down the page towards the bottom:

21             "They got as far as Pakrac.  Up there are villages, man, they are

22     villages there, from Podravska Slatina, from Bocina Gora.  Everybody has

23     out from Mount Bilogora, there's no one to protect them from that side,

24     they were territorials there, there is no army there, that's the

25     problem."

Page 17489

 1             Do you know what that is a reference to?  Are you able to cast

 2     any light on that -- or those comments?

 3        A.   I repeat:  Civilians were fleeing because they did not feel safe

 4     staying on.  They -- they were fleeing from the fighting in Sarajevo, in

 5     Banja Luka, and they were fleeing for their lives.  Those were

 6     municipalities with a majority Serb population.  They were afraid of the

 7     Croatian forces, and Vukovar later happened as well.  There was mayhem.

 8     People were afraid of revenge, and I understand them completely.  They

 9     had to run because the civilian authorities were not functioning.  It was

10     a combat area.

11        Q.   But then let's go, finally, to page 5 of the English and 4 of the

12     B/C/S.

13             And Stanisic says, "they won't give up ...,"  this is halfway

14     down the page in English:

15             "They won't give up and there's no one there to protect them.

16     They're scared stiff.  Fucking hell.  They are burning villages, killing,

17     fucking hell, slitting throats.  What?"

18             And Karadzic says:

19             "Yes."

20             And then Stanisic, going over the page in the B/C/S, says:

21             "We should have agreed to send all we could and raise -- raise of

22     the volunteers possible there, raise them there."

23             Do you know, Mr. Selak, whether, what is described there of

24     villages burning and people having their throats slit, whether that has

25     any basis, in fact, in December of 1991, and the need, as expressed by

Page 17490

 1     Stanisic, for some kind of defence?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour.

 3             MS. HARBOUR:  Could I just ask that those be asked as two

 4     separate questions so it's clear to the witness.

 5             MR. JORDASH:  Okay.

 6        Q.   Do you know anything about the events described by Stanisic in

 7     terms of what was happening in some of the villages, burnings and

 8     slitting of throats, and so on?

 9        A.   I don't know the details.  I know that was happening in the

10     entire area but where exactly, when, I don't know.  I did not have any

11     detailed reports or information about actual events and who was

12     responsible.

13        Q.   From your knowledge and experience of being on the ground during

14     this period of time, did any of the Serb villages need protection from

15     this kind of atrocity?

16        A.   Your Honours, that was the territory of Croatia, and the combat

17     going on there was involving the JNA.  It was responsible for these

18     operations.  If Croatia became independent, then the JNA should have

19     pulled out and let the Croatian authorities to organise new government in

20     those areas.  However, the army did not withdraw.  It got involved in two

21     armed operations.  Even volunteer units were formed.  However, the

22     Croatian forces were stronger, and then it all the resulted in a

23     massacre, from which people were fleeing, as I described earlier.

24        Q.   Sorry.  At what stages were the Croatia forces stronger; and at

25     what stage did the massacre in relation to this commence?

Page 17491

 1        A.   Pursuant to an order from General Adzic.  In October 1991,

 2     General Adzic ordered me in Banja Luka to go tour Pakrac and Lipik

 3     together with Talic.  And at that time, the rocket brigades from

 4     Banja Luka targeted Lipik and Pakrac with multiple rocket-launcher.

 5     There was not a single response from the Croatian side.  However, that

 6     was in 1991.  From then on, the Croatian forces advanced from Zagreb,

 7     Sisak, et cetera, to recover their territory from the JNA.  We did not

 8     have details about these operations because it was the Banja Luka Corps

 9     that conducted them in addition to other units, and I don't know the

10     details.  But I know the outcome.  Many people got killed because of what

11     the JNA did.  Because, in 1991, at a referendum in May, or maybe earlier,

12     Croatia declared its independence.

13        Q.   Mr. Selak, when did the Croatia forces advance from Zagreb?  Are

14     you able to put a month on that, please.

15        A.   I cannot give you the exact months.  They organised their own

16     army in time.  I don't know which unit was mobilised when, in what

17     complement and what missions they had.  I really don't know any of these

18     things, because I didn't have access to that sort of information in

19     Banja Luka.

20        Q.   Was it -- from what you have said, it was after October 1991.

21     Was it within 1991?

22        A.   Yes, after October 1991.  Right.

23        Q.   Within 1991?

24        A.   I don't understand the question.

25        Q.   It was after 1991 -- sorry.  After October 1991.  But was it

Page 17492

 1     still within 1991 when the Croatian forces advanced and the massacre

 2     occurred?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  No further questions.

 5             Thank you, Mr. Selak.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Thank you Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Jordash.

 8             Any further questions?

 9             MS. HARBOUR:  No further questions, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Since the Bench has no further questions either,

13     Mr. Selak, this concludes your testimony in this Court.

14             I'd like to thank you very much for coming the long way to

15     The Hague and for having answered all the questions that were put to you

16     by the parties and by the Bench, and I'd like to wish you a safe return

17     home again.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You may follow the usher.

20                           [The witness withdrew]

21                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, if this would be a suitable time to make

23     the submissions you intended to make.

24             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

25             The submission related to two expert reports, a MUP report and a


Page 17493

 1     military report.  And the Prosecution has some very serious concerns

 2     about the format and the way that we must deal with these reports and

 3     wants to raise them.

 4             I'm going to ask Ms. Marcus to deal with the MUP report and then

 5     Mr. Weber to deal with the military report.

 6             I will ask Ms. Marcus to address you now on the MUP report.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Marcus.

 8             MS. MARCUS:  Good morning, Your Honours, thank you.  With respect

 9     to the MUP report and for the information of the Chamber, the Prosecution

10     has had to invest substantial time, I would say approximately two weeks

11     thus far, just trying to determine what source material has been provided

12     and what is still pending.

13             When we request this material from the Defence we often receive

14     only partial responses with comments upon the importance of our requests,

15     thus, requiring repeated correspondence over one document or one footnote

16     to try to convince the Defence to provide us with the sourced material.

17     I find it surprising, to say the least, that the Defence should put

18     forward a proposed expert report, fail to provide all the source

19     material, and then oblige the Prosecution to convince them that the

20     source material should be provided.

21             Furthermore the latest response we received on the 10th of

22     February from the Defence informs us that we will receive additional

23     feedback from Mr. Milosevic early this week - that would have been this

24     week - we're still waiting for that.

25             Then we will need to sit down, compare the material and

Page 17494

 1     information provided by the Defence with the information provided by

 2     Mr. Milosevic, and again determine what materials are still missing.

 3             I will not take more time on this issue.  We will be sending

 4     another communication to the Defence with a chart of the correspondence

 5     on each footnote and each source document.  I don't see any other way to

 6     do that.  I would just like to point out that this process is so

 7     time-consuming that we have not been able to get to analysing the report

 8     itself due to the substantial amount of missing material and challenges

 9     in receiving that material.

10             One more point on the MUP report I'd like to raise, namely the

11     inclusion in this report of portions which are irrelevant by -- according

12     to the Defence and which will not be relied upon by them according to

13     their own assertions.  In an e-mail of the 10th of February the Simatovic

14     Defence asserted:

15             "In your letter you request documents only mentioned in the

16     report for the sake of clarity of pleading and general context.  We do

17     believe that these documents are irrelevant for the case and will only

18     burden the case file without any real necessity.  We do even offer to

19     omit sentences where these documents are mentioned."

20             In the e-mail of the 18th of January, the Simatovic Defence had

21     identified portions of the MUP report on which the Defence will not rely

22     and other portions which are "of very limited relevance."

23             Due to the time being invested in figuring out the missing

24     information in relation to these reports, we submit that this time should

25     not be spent on portions which the Simatovic Defence themselves will not

Page 17495

 1     rely on or which they already concede are irrelevant.  The Prosecution

 2     submits that the Simatovic Defence should first be obliged to remove

 3     those portions of each report - well, my colleague will discuss the

 4     military report -- to remove those portions of the MUP report on which

 5     they do not intend to rely or which they have determined are not

 6     relevant.

 7             I now pass the floor to Mr. Weber for the military report.

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

18             MR. WEBER:  Good morning.  The Prosecution at this time provides

19     a submission with respect to the proposed military expert report provided

20     on 9 February 2012.  The Prosecution refrains from using the author's

21     name of this report due to a pending motion for protective measures filed

22     on 30 December 2011.  We do maintain our opposition to this individual

23     being extended the requested protective measures.

24             As part of this submission, the Prosecution does seek

25     clarification from both Defence teams as to whether the military expert

Page 17496

 1     report is submitted as a joint report from both Defence teams.  The

 2     Prosecution notes that section D1 of the introduction of the report which

 3     is 2D1066 states:

 4             "The report has been prepared only and solely for the needs of

 5     the Defence teams," plural, "in Court" --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we continue, can we just ask if it is a joint

 7     report, yes or no, then we get a yes or a no answer.

 8             MR. JORDASH:  It is not.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  It's not.

10             Please proceed.

11             MR. WEBER:  Okay.

12             The Prosecution would then like to place the following procedural

13     history on the record at this time:  On 1 April 2011, the Trial Chamber

14     issued a Scheduling Order requiring the Defence to comply with disclosure

15     obligations by 7 June 2011.  In a motion filed on 6 June 2011, the

16     Simatovic Defence requested an extension of time to disclose the reports

17     of two expert witnesses.  This included the military expert report.

18             In paragraph 17 of the 6th June 2011 motion, the

19     Simatovic Defence stated that it anticipated having the B/C/S version of

20     its military expert report by 23 July 2011 with the English translation

21     to be made available no later than 12 August 2011.

22             On 16 November 2011, the Prosecution was sent a 732-page version

23     of the report in B/C/S.  The cover page of the report contained the date

24     of November 2010.  Based on this date, the Prosecution does not

25     understand and still does not understand the reason the Defence waited to

Page 17497

 1     submit such a large report for translation when it appears that it was

 2     available to them - meaning both Defence teams - in November 2010.  Or,

 3     for that matter, why the Defence teams did not disclose the report to the

 4     Prosecution as required on 7 June 2011.

 5             On 17 November 2011 the Simatovic Defence filed an update and

 6     stated the military expert report had been completed and submitted for

 7     translation on 4 August 2011.  CLSS stated that the translation should be

 8     completed by the end of the year.

 9             The Prosecution notes the difference in the dates provided by the

10     Defence on 6 June and 17 November and submits the likelihood of receiving

11     an English translation of a 732-page report by 12 August was very low,

12     especially if it was just submitted for translation on the

13     4th of August, 2011.

14             On 9 February 2012, the Prosecution received notice of the expert

15     report pursuant to Rule 94 bis and the availability of an English

16     translation of the report.  Upon initial review, it appears the current

17     B/C/S version of the report is 768 pages.  The corresponding English

18     translation totals 1.105 pages.  There appears to be a total of 3.178

19     different footnotes along with 130 appendices to the report.  It does not

20     appear that the Defence has disclosed the English or B/C/S version of the

21     appendices.

22             With respect to these appendices, the Prosecution would note that

23     the references to them in the report appear to indicate these attachments

24     include charts, figures, diagrams, and additional sections of the report

25     that discuss matters such as "logistic support in the JNA, TO OS SAO

Page 17498

 1     Krajina, the establishment of the TO SAO K operation zones,

 2     Western Slavonia TO, and TO of local Serbs in Croatia" just to name some

 3     examples from parts 1 and 2 of the report.

 4             In paragraph 5 of the Prosecution's response dated 10 June 2011

 5     to the Simatovic Defence request for an extension of time to file its

 6     expert report, the Prosecution submitted applicable law based upon the

 7     Rules of Procedure and Evidence and jurisprudence from the Gotovina Trial

 8     Chamber.  This paragraph stated:

 9             "Rule 94 bis (A) requires a party to disclose the full statement

10     and/or report of any expert witness within the time-limit prescribed by

11     the Trial Chamber.  The jurisprudence indicates that while this

12     time-limit is not absolute, late disclosure of an expert report warrants

13     the same considerations as the additional of documents to the Rule 65 ter

14     exhibit list.  The Chamber must therefore determine whether it would be

15     in the interests of justice to consider a belatedly filed expert report

16     by considering (A) whether the report is prima facie relevant and

17     probative; (B) whether the party submitting the report is shown good

18     cause for the belated submission; and (C), the extent to which the new

19     filing would create an additional burden upon the opposing party.

20             The Prosecution submits that this very standard should apply to

21     the military expert report submitted by the Defence on 9 February 2012.

22             The Prosecution submission would be there is a lack of good

23     cause.  This individual has been retained as an expert by the Defence

24     teams since 2007 as reflected on the 8 May 2007 65 ter conference

25     transcript, page 372.

Page 17499

 1             The reports appear to have been drafted by November 2010.  The

 2     Prosecution submits that based upon these facts which have become known

 3     in terms of the timing of the report during the past few months, the

 4     Defence lacks good cause for the belated submission of the report.

 5             The Prosecution further submits that large portions of the report

 6     do not appear to be of central relevance or probative of issues in this

 7     case.  As an example, the Prosecution would observe that part 2 of the

 8     report entitled "The SFRY OS VJ and the conflict in Croatia 1991 to 1995"

 9     contains discussions on the co-operation and co-ordination of tasks to

10     the Main Staff of the VJ and the relationship between the Command Staff

11     of the VJ and the SVK.  There also appears to be a discussions of a

12     variety of combat operations and units for which the relevance is unclear

13     based upon the pre-trial brief of the Simatovic Defence.  The Prosecution

14     also note sat the time that there appears to be redundant material and

15     analysis between the Defence report and the Theunens report.  In

16     particular, we would note at this time the decisions of the military laws

17     and also the existence and use of temporary joint combat or ad hoc

18     formations.

19             The Prosecution would incorporate also the same concerns that

20     have been articulated for the MUP report.  With respect to the military

21     expert report, going forward, in that there is likely to be

22     correspondence or communications that could arise about whether or not

23     large components of this report are of limited relevance or no relevance

24     to this case.

25             The submission of such a large expert report at the very end of

Page 17500

 1     the case creates and extraordinary burden on the opposing party under

 2     these circumstances.  First, the Prosecution has great difficulty in

 3     navigating the report since the page numbers and the table of contents do

 4     not correspond to the page numbers of the English translation.  In light

 5     of the fact of that this is a very voluminous report, this often causes

 6     great time in locating different sections of the report.

 7             Second, there are over 1600 different sources, many of which

 8     appear voluminous in and of themselves.  These sources are referenced in

 9     over 3.000 footnotes.  The Prosecution is still in the process of

10     evaluating the amount of time necessary to process this report, but at

11     this time, we can state that without the means of cross-referencing

12     65 ter, ERN, exhibit numbers, and just the descriptions of the documents,

13     it will be very difficult to prepare such a large report in an efficient

14     manner.  The Prosecution also sees there are hundreds of footnotes

15     without any 65 ter, ERN or exhibit number.  Spot-checks have also

16     revealed that we are not in possession of a significant amount of English

17     translations for the underlying source documentation.

18             It appears that the report may contain large volume of evidence

19     that is not admitted and possibly not on the 65 ter lists of the parties.

20     In light of the variety of units and operations discussed in the report

21     and the documents the Prosecution may also possess, to contextualise

22     these matters, the potential volume of material in this case, could

23     greatly increase at a very late stage in the proceedings.  The

24     Prosecution is concerned over these circumstances.

25             In light of the unclear relevance of some of the materials and

Page 17501

 1     lack of notice by the Defence, the Prosecution is generally unsure of how

 2     the Defence intends to rely on many of the materials or opinions

 3     referenced in the military report.

 4             Accordingly, the Prosecution respectfully requests at the very

 5     least the following from the Trial Chamber:

 6             First, a stay of the Prosecution's 30-day response deadline

 7     pursuant to Rule 94 bis until the Defence provides complete B/C/S and

 8     English versions of the entire report, including all appendices.

 9             Second, the Prosecution requests that the Chamber require the

10     Defence to file a joint -- well, in this matter since it is not -- since

11     the Stanisic has indicated that it is not a joint report, that the

12     Simatovic Defence file a submission addressing the good cause for filing

13     the report at such a belated stage and explain the relevance of the

14     different sections of the report to their cases.  It would be appreciated

15     if in doing so the Simatovic Defence could directly reference where in

16     their pre-trial brief they provided any notice to rely on such

17     information contained in the report.  If there is no clear relevance or

18     no clear notice that have been provided, the Prosecution requests that

19     either the Simatovic Defence withdraw those portions of the report or

20     that the Trial Chamber strike those portions of the report based upon

21     submissions by the parties.

22             There are a number of other technical matters that are similar

23     to what was raised with respect to the MUP report.  In order have a clear

24     record of many of these individual items, the Prosecution anticipates

25     also sending a letter with respect to the military expert report, and we

Page 17502

 1     intend to copy the Chamber on this in order to keep the Chamber aware of

 2     the situation.

 3             Thank you, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 5             Mr. Jordash.

 6             MR. JORDASH:  Sorry, I'm not going to detain the Court with a

 7     response because obviously that concerns Simatovic.  But I am responding

 8     to the suggestion that we, as Defence teams, should have disclosed the

 9     report to the Prosecution as required by 7th of June 2001 [sic].  I don't

10     know of any Rule which requires the Stanisic Defence to disclose a report

11     that it does not seek to rely upon.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  That's on the record.

13             Mr. Bakrac.

14             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me first give an

15     assurances to the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber.  At some point my

16     learned friend Mr. Weber said that perhaps this was ill-intended on the

17     part of the Defence.  Wells let me reassure you that this there is no

18     ill-intention on the part of the Defence.  We are doing our best to

19     provide adequate Defence for our client whilst co-operating with the

20     Prosecution and the Trial Chamber.

21             Mr. Weber said quite rightly that this expert report has been on

22     our list since 2007.  I wish to remind my colleagues from the Prosecution

23     and Their Honours that the entire Defence team for Simatovic -- almost

24     the -- in fact, the entire Defence team was -- had to change in 2009 due

25     to a tragic circumstance.  I do not want to be seen as if I were shifting

Page 17503

 1     this to anyone else, but we were doing our best to rise up to the

 2     challenge and grapple with the case.

 3             There did come about a misunderstanding because we thought that

 4     this joint expert report, who was on the list in 2007, we thought that

 5     this expert would end up on the Stanisic witness list.  We don't want to

 6     say that it was the fault of the Defence for Stanisic.  Rather, by the

 7     time we noticed that the expert witness was not on the list, we tried to

 8     get in touch with him, obtain his report, and file it.  It is also true

 9     that my estimates with regard to the translation were wrong.  We thought

10     it would be much faster.  We were waiting for the translation to be

11     completed until several days ago, when --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, let me just -- a lot of words.  23rd of

13     July, you say, English translation, that's at least what Mr. Weber said,

14     is to be expected on the 12th of August.

15             How could you possibly have thought that 730 pages would be

16     translated in two and a half weeks during the summer recess?  I mean, we

17     thought it would be much faster.

18             Explain to me what experience you have which would allow you to

19     expect reasonably a translation of 6 -- 730-page document within two and

20     a half weeks.

21             Could you please explain to me on what basis you could have

22     thought that it would be any quicker than three, four, five months?

23             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I simply have no

24     explanation for that or justification.  I gave that estimate lightly,

25     obviously.  I don't know what the resources or -- at the disposal of the

Page 17504

 1     the translation service are.  We were -- we were given back some

 2     translations quite soon after we had requested them, and that led me to

 3     believe --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Translations of documents of what size?  Three

 5     pages?  Four pages?  We're talking about 730 pages, Mr. Bakrac.  So even

 6     to come up and say, Well, sometimes we receive translations rather

 7     quickly.  Are you not taking it seriously when we put this question to

 8     you when you say, Well, we sometimes receive it very quickly.

 9             730 pages, to give an expectation to receive in the middle of the

10     summer recess, a translation within two and a half weeks, you should not

11     have said that without having consulted with CLSS.  And I take that if

12     you would have consulted with them, that you would not have had any

13     reasonable expectations to have received it within two and a half weeks

14     in the middle of the summer.

15             Please proceed, and try to focus on the core.  I consider the bad

16     intents to be rather in the margin than in the core.  The primary concern

17     of the Prosecution is how can we possibly deal with this material at this

18     stage, and isn't the Simatovic Defence to be blamed for this situation to

19     arise.  That's the issue.

20             Could you please focus on that.

21             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that my

22     colleague, Mr. Petrovic, was in communication with Ms. Marcus, and in

23     their exchange, he suggested a meeting.  Perhaps the most expedient

24     solution would be, if you agree, that we meet next week with our

25     colleagues from the Prosecution and try and resolve the matter in

Page 17505

 1     practical terms.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  When did Mr. Petrovic suggest a meeting?

 3             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in a letter, dated the

 4     10th of February --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's three years too late, approximately,

 6     isn't it?  When the expert was tasked in 2007 or 2006 or 2007, then to

 7     say, Well, let's resolve the matters.  The problem is huge.  And to say,

 8     We'll meet and then the matter will be resolved is of a similar kind as

 9     to say on the 23rd of July that there will be an English translation by

10     the 12th of August.  I admire your optimism.

11             Please proceed.

12             And by the way, what was the answer by Ms. Marcus or ...

13             MS. MARCUS:  Your Honour, that -- that offer was with respect to

14     the MUP report.  It was in an e-mail communication regarding some details

15     of footnotes in respect of the MUP report.

16             I would just add that this problem that we have with the military

17     report certainly cannot be resolved in a meeting.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  It seems that it's unlikely.

19             Has any suggestion been made to resolve the matter in a meeting,

20     as far as the military report is concerned?  Did you ever offer that,

21     Mr. -- or did Mr. Petrovic offer that?

22             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  Several days ago,

23     we sent the translation of the expert report to the Prosecution, and we

24     are still reviewing the footnotes and annexes to see what is missing.  I

25     will deal with this as soon as possible and get in touch with the

Page 17506

 1     Prosecution to see which are the portions that we can delete, in order to

 2     make this large expert report acceptable.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, could you tell us.

 4             Mr. Weber told us that you indicated to the Prosecution that you

 5     would not rely on portions of the police report, the MUP report.

 6             Could you tell us approximately how many of these 180 pages you

 7     would not rely on?

 8             No, I'm not asking for -- but would it be one-third, or half, or

 9     20 per cent or -- approximately.

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am in a position now

11     where I may say something that would be imprecise.  Can I have some time,

12     please, to review that and get back to you with an accurate figure of

13     what it is that we can set aside as the portion that we will not be

14     relying on.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, you indicated that to the Prosecution, isn't

16     it?  So you must have an idea about it.  That's at least what Ms. Marcus

17     told us.

18             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  That concerns the

19     police report.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I'm asking about the police report, because I

21     referred to 180 pages, which is the police report, Mr. Bakrac.

22             So what did you have on your mind when you communicated to

23     Ms. Marcus that you might not rely on certain portions of the police

24     report?  I take it that you had identified them, at least to some extent.

25             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, they are portions

Page 17507

 1     related to the situation in Kosovo in 1989, Presidency decisions, that's

 2     to say SFRY Presidency decisions, to deploy the JNA to Kosovo --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  So you have identified them.

 4             Could you tell me approximately what portion of the report that

 5     presents?  Again, is this 20 per cent; is this 50 per cent; is it

 6     40 per cent; is it 80 per cent?  Approximately.

 7             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I assume -- again, I

 8     don't want to go wrong.  Let's say approximately 30 per cent of the

 9     report.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now, the same for the military report.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters note that there is background

12     noise.

13             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you will allow me,

14     the military report, if I may address you on that on Monday and give you

15     an estimate because -- so to give you an estimate of what is the portion

16     that we believe is not relevant for the case.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  So apparently there is a portion which is not

18     relevance for the case.

19             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we received the

20     military report as a whole.  There are elements in it related to the

21     historical chronology of the JNA.  And for the sake of expeditiousness

22     and to allow adequate preparation to the Prosecution, we can check this

23     with the expert.

24             We are going to be editing his report so I suppose we have your

25     understanding for the fact that we will have to consult with him to see

Page 17508

 1     and establish what are the portions that we can leave out.

 2             We will be focussing on those elements that are not strictly

 3     necessary for our case, and we will do so in consultation with the

 4     expert, and we would kindly ask you to give us a time-limit within which

 5     we would go through the exercise.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, what is relevant for the case is for

 7     counsel to decide.  What portions not to rely on, relevant or not, is for

 8     counsel to decide.  Now it sounds very pleasant to say "for the sake of

 9     the expeditiousness and to allow adequate preparation to the

10     Prosecution," if you would have consulted and have made up your mind once

11     you received the military report, which was in July, you would saved this

12     Tribunal a huge amount of -- and money and time by selecting the relevant

13     portions you wish to rely on before you sent it to CLSS for translation.

14             So, on the basis of what you've told me now, it is a total

15     misapprehension to think that sending everything for translation would

16     either speed up or would accommodate the Prosecution.  I'm inclined to

17     believe that the contrary is true; that it delayed, considerably, the

18     availability of an English version of the report.

19             Now, the Chamber has earlier expressed that it would be necessary

20     that you consult -- that you seriously consider to reduce the size of the

21     report.  From what I see now, that no serious effort has been made in

22     that respect because the numbers here are still the same as they were

23     half a year ago.  Of course the Chamber could give no guidance because it

24     had no access to the content of the report, apart from that it's not for

25     the Chamber to decide what you consider to be relevant for the case.

Page 17509

 1     Finally, of course, we'll decide whether evidence is relevant or not, but

 2     we are usually rather generous, expecting that the parties will seriously

 3     take efforts not to flood the Chamber with irrelevant material.  The

 4     Chamber is not inclined very much to be the master of the case

 5     presentation.  To the contrary, it's in the hands of the parties, and the

 6     Chamber expects the parties to responsibly perform their task.

 7             Now, there is some background noise.  I was -- I don't know where

 8     it comes from.  I'm not aware of doing anything wrong, but there seems to

 9     be a ...

10             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, again, it seems that I

11     am to blame.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Oh, I would approach it in a different way,

13     Mr. Bakrac.  I would say at least this problem is resolved.  That's the

14     positive approach.

15             Mr. Bakrac, do you know what you're risking at this moment?

16     You're risking that the Chamber will not admit, for procedural reasons,

17     the evidence you want to present.  And looking at this history of this

18     problem where the expert was tasked in either 2006 or 2007, where you

19     have, from what I understand from your submissions at this moment, that

20     you have not seriously followed the guidance of the Chamber.  That is,

21     see how we can reduce it, take care that everything is transparent.

22     You're taking high risks because there are limits to what a Chamber can

23     do, and you know what the case law is.  And, of course, I first will have

24     to consider with my colleagues what the consequences are, but it should

25     have been clear to you already for well over a half a year that you

Page 17510

 1     should do something, which apparently you haven't done.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  The Judges will have to consider the situation.

 4             Meanwhile, even if one meeting might not resolve the problem,

 5     certainly not in respect of the military report where there seems -- the

 6     problems seem to be even greater than with the MUP report, that it might

 7     be good to see to what extent a meeting can contribute to a solution such

 8     as identify where there is an overlap with the Theunens reports and no

 9     great dispute about the content - I do not know.  I have not seen the

10     report.  I have not read it, I should say - and to see whether we can get

11     the problem back to such dimensions that there is a reasonable chance

12     that the matter will be resolved, because the dimensions of the problem

13     at this moment seem to be such that unless something drastically is done

14     that it might be extremely difficult to come to an acceptable solution.

15             Mr. Weber, let me first --

16             Mr. Bakrac, not just a meeting on the MUP report but on the

17     military report as well.  Tea or coffee, I leave that to you.

18             Mr. Weber.

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, with respect to the military report, the

20     scope of the problem is such that we aren't even in a position to really

21     dive in depth in terms of how to analyse this or even organise it

22     because we're completely lacking means of cross-referencing.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, if Mr. Bakrac, after having gone through

24     the -- the table of content of the report would come to you and would

25     say, Would it assist you in any way if I would drop this chapter, that

Page 17511

 1     chapter, that chapter, that chapter?  How could we continue to work on

 2     chapter A and would it be agreeable to you that we start with chapter 7 A

 3     and then deal with chapter 3, and could we make an offer within the next

 4     week explaining to you where the overlap with the Theunens report is, why

 5     not?

 6             MR. WEBER:  Thank you for clarifying that.  With respect to that

 7     possibility, the Prosecution would like to reiterate that it considers

 8     that as inappropriate for us to decide or participate in deciding what

 9     the Defence considers that they need to rely upon in the submission of

10     its own case.  And, as the Chamber stated, this is incumbent upon the

11     Defence to decide to do that.  In my original submission, I also stated

12     that it is unclear to us, based on the notice that we received from the

13     Defence, what many of these portions may or may not be relevant to.  So

14     it would be the Prosecution's position that it is the Defence's decision

15     alone to decide what they intend to rely upon and they are the ones best

16     positioned to do that.

17             The Prosecution does not seek to engage in a negotiation with

18     them over what may or may not be relevant to the case.  I believe that

19     would be unproductive and also time-consuming with such a voluminous

20     report.  Not to say that we wouldn't be willing to meet with them to

21     discuss many of the technical matters, table of contents, see how we can

22     better organise going through the report, we would be willing to do that,

23     and that could alleviate some ability for the parties to -- with whatever

24     is decided to then be submitted be able to more efficiently process the

25     report on that level.

Page 17512

 1             The Prosecution would just note we've been discussing the

 2     possibility of deadlines.  We would request that firm deadlines be set

 3     upon the Defence to make decisions with respect to both the MUP report

 4     and the military report, as to what portions are going to be relied upon.

 5     The Prosecution also would, with respect to the military report, again

 6     reiterate that we have requested two specific forms of relief, and, one,

 7     that being a stay of the Prosecution's 30-day response deadline and also

 8     whether or not the Defence can file a submission based on what the

 9     relevance is.

10             So we would again request that the Chamber consider that as part

11     of its deliberations.

12             Thank you.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  What I heard over the last two and a half

14     minutes, Mr. Weber, is to say, Whatever the Chamber suggests would not be

15     appropriate, we couldn't do that, we couldn't negotiate that.  I try

16     tried to give you some guidance on what such a meeting could mean.  What

17     you say, Of course, we could meet but only on technicalities, apparently

18     not accepting the guidance and the suggestion of the Chamber.  Because

19     what I suggested is that a meeting, not primarily focussing on only on

20     the technicalities, might assist in down sizing the problem in such a way

21     that perhaps in the near future that we could better tackle the problem.

22     Of course, you couldn't impose on the Defence what they should rely on

23     yes or no.  But, of course, you can say, If you do not rely on that part

24     of the report then we would have a lesser problem.  Of course, that --

25     relevance and relying on certain portions which something you could not

Page 17513

 1     possibly discuss between the parties seems far too strong statement to

 2     me.  And what you then did is insist on getting a decision on what you

 3     wanted.  Of course, finally the Chamber will decide on any motion, but

 4     the Chamber would appreciate if would you also first try to explore a bit

 5     more in detail the possibilities that may lead to a solution.

 6             At the same time, Mr. Bakrac, I think that the message I conveyed

 7     to the Simatovic Defence has been strong enough.

 8             MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  And if I may be

 9     allowed to add, I did have the intention of the Defence sitting down and

10     seeing what it is, at this stage of trial, that we can leave out of the

11     report and then perhaps see what it is that the Prosecution find

12     controversial and complete the exercise as soon as possible.

13             That was my suggestion.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I think I earlier expressed that the path to

15     the place where we don't want to be is paved with good intentions.  I

16     have heard a lot of good intentions in the context of the matter that

17     we're discussing at the moment, and I'm afraid that we are at a point

18     that good intentions are not sufficient anymore and that decisions will

19     have to be taken and it comes down to, now, decisive steps to be taken.

20             Anything else?

21             MR. WEBER:  No, Your Honour.  We will sit and meet with the

22     Defence.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Bakrac, my suggestion to you would be to very

24     well consider your position at this moment.  Not to meet within a half an

25     hour from now, but, first, make up your own mind, then met with the

Page 17514

 1     Defence [sic], and the Chamber expects a very brief report ...

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  As always, the Chamber offers its good services as

 4     well.  The Chamber's team will go through all the submissions which were

 5     made in relation to these reports over the last long period of time and

 6     may offer its assistance in resolving matters, and that is done by

 7     Chamber's staff, independently, and not on specific instructions from the

 8     Chamber.  Don't be afraid that the Chamber is intervening or interfering

 9     with matters which are primarily in the hands of the parties.  At the

10     same time, the Chamber cannot go on just to look and listen.  And of

11     course, finally, the Chamber will decide the matter, if need be.  But if

12     we could -- the Chamber is always anxious to achieve that both parties

13     will be able to present their cases in the best possible way but within

14     the limits of what is procedurally acceptable.

15             So if Chamber's staff would offer any assistance, it may be by

16     identifying what issues have been put on the record, whatever, not in any

17     way to attempt or even try to attempt to control what parties should

18     present.  But since it is finally a decision of the Chamber whether or

19     not evidence can be admitted, yes or no, and in view of the -- what I

20     just expressed as the -- what is important for the Chamber, that is, that

21     within procedural limits, parties are able to optimally present their

22     cases, it is in this context that you should understand any communication

23     with Chamber's staff.

24             We are running out of the tape, I take it.  If there is any other

25     urgent matter to be raised at this moment.  If not, then we adjourn, but

Page 17515

 1     not -- no.  I'll communicate this matter in an informal communication

 2     with the parties.

 3             And we will adjourn until Tuesday, the -- no.  Yes, 21st -- 21st

 4     of February, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in this same courtroom,

 5     II.

 6                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.38 p.m.,

 7                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 21st day of

 8                           February, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.